Wednesday, April 17, 2013

3. Ed Kilgore notes that Rand Paul's Howard speech seems to have adopted Kevin Williamson's version of party history. To me, that raises the question: could Paul have sounded like a jerk because he really didn't know what he was talking about? Once again, there are costs for having an information structure within a party dedicated to fooling you own followers.

4. And Alyssa Rosenberg has some advice for the TV people for how to fill time during a crisis. I think the problem she identifies -- what to do in a situation where one-subject coverage seems appropriate but actual news only shows up in bursts -- is an excellent one, whether or not you agree on her specific suggestions.

14 comments:

Kilgore makes it sound like Williamson invented the argument about how Lincoln and the Dixiecrats permanently taint the Democratic Party while absolving the GOP of racism. In fact, it's an old right-wing talking point. Rush Limbaugh was making it back in 2002 during the Trent Lott controversy, and it's been used by Fox commentators many times over the years whenever Democratic charges of racism come up. What made Williamson's piece stand out was (1) it was a National Review essay that attempted to give the argument some intellectual heft (2) it provided a rebuttal to the counterargument that the South became Republican over the civil-rights issue.

Paul's remarks at Howard fit more into the Limbaugh model than the Williamson model. He never attempted to explain the South's political realignment after the passage of the Civil Rights Act; he didn't even mention it. He was trying to imply that white Democrats today are essentially the same people as in the past, demographically as well as ideologically. He acknowledged that blacks became Democrat, but not that white Southerners became Republican.

"Democrats in Louisville were led by Courier-Journal editor Henry Watterson and were implacably opposed to blacks voting. Watterson wrote that his opposition to blacks voting was “founded upon a conviction that their habits of life and general condition disqualify them from the judicious exercise of suffrage".... Kentucky’s Democrat-controlled legislature voted against the 13th, the 14th, and the 15th amendments.... We see horrible Jim Crow laws and horrible racism that happened in the '30s, '40s, '50s. It was all Democrats! It wasn't Republicans."

Kylopod, if you think Rand's point was to trash Democrats, then I think you failed to read those lines in context. For example, he introduces the comment about "Democrats in Louiseville" by saying: "In Kentucky, the history of black voting rights is inseparable from the Republican Party. Virtually all African Americans became Republicans."

His point was to highlight the historical black relationship with the GOP. While he does contrast this with the words and actions of Democrats, he doesn't suggest, as you say: "that white Democrats today are essentially the same people as in the past."

But one conclusion that Rand does draw is this:"Republicans still prize the sense of justice that MLK spoke of when he said that 'an unjust law is any law the majority enforces on a minority but does not make binding upon itself.'"

Later, he says:"I think our retelling of the civil rights era does not give enough credit to the heroism of civil disobedience."

We don't generally think of Lincoln, MLK and Rand Paul together -- they're ideologically and demographically very different -- yet they do share a common adherence to the idea of a moral law that takes precedence over human law.

Rand represents genuine change in the GOP -- in his Howard speech he is feeling his way towards what that change means in a historical context. By writing a historical narrative, he is trying to define what it means to be a Republican today. Based on the questions he received afterwards, I think his audience understood this --and I hope Rand does take the dialogue seriously. For example, his own position on gun control is very similar to the position of many Americans on Voter ID -- they're both pointless encumbrances of our freedom.

Full text:http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/04/10/rand-paul-delivers-speech-at-howard-university/

Well, excuse me for suspecting that an ambitious Republican politician who throws around the term "Democrat Party" would possibly be interested in trashing Democrats. My charitability does have its limits.

then I think you failed to read those lines in context. For example, he introduces the comment about "Democrats in Louiseville" by saying: "In Kentucky, the history of black voting rights is inseparable from the Republican Party. Virtually all African Americans became Republicans."

How does the fact that he identifies the civil rights struggle with the GOP in any way contradict my claim that he mentions the Democratic Party's segregationist past in order to trash the Democrats? The two go hand in hand.

he doesn't suggest, as you say: "that white Democrats today are essentially the same people as in the past."

He was advocating that blacks should support the GOP again. By rooting his argument in the parties' actions in the past--while completely ignoring the Democratic Party's active role in the progress of civil rights from Truman to LBJ as well as the GOP's courting of the white racist vote since the 1960s--the hidden premise was that the parties have remained essentially the same. If the Democrats abandoned the racism he documents while the Republicans grew less, shall we say, accommodating to the interests of African Americans--as is, in fact, the case--then his argument is a non sequitur. It would be like saying "Vote Democrat because most Republicans in the 1940s opposed going to war against Hitler." It makes no sense to mention the past without the present unless you're assuming a continuity that doesn't exist.

By writing a historical narrative, he is trying to define what it means to be a Republican today.

And that's what makes his argument so dishonest. Republicans who supported the civil rights movement in the 1960s came from the liberal, Rockefeller wing of the party, which no longer exists and which conservatives today usually have nothing but contempt for. The "movement conservatism" of Buckley, Goldwater, and Reagan, which took over the GOP and which virtually all elected Republicans today including Rand Paul claim allegiance to, was uniformly opposed to the civil rights movement. Most of these conservatives later came around to accept it, at least nominally, but none of them supported it while it was happening. And here comes Paul, one of the few elected Republicans today who has openly expressed doubts about the CRA, dishonestly claiming to have always supported the law. He isn't defining what it means to be a Republican today, he's allowing the modern-day GOP to take credit for the accomplishments of a GOP faction that no longer exists because it was supplanted by the conservatism that Rand and most other Republicans now champion.

I think Rand's stated premise is clear enough without inventing some "hidden premise" based on your own preconceived expectations of what Republicans really think.

And there's nothing dishonest about stating his own opinion in his own terms -- there's no reason he can't embrace both the cause of ending segregation and of limiting government (indeed, I'm sure he'd say they're the same cause). You're playing the same silly political games you're accusing Rand of when you insist on identifying him with the anti-segregation Republicans of the past.

I will say this -- I'd call Rand naive for thinking he could inject his libertarianism into the conversation, by questioning elements of the CRA that deal with private property. I remember watching that interview on Rachel Maddow's show -- Rand previously had a great relationship with Maddow based on their common cause on a number of issues -- he looked like a hurt puppy as he realized that Maddow was turning his libertarian philosophizing against him. Progressives were quite delighted to show where libertarian doctrine could lead someone -- but I don't think anyone honestly thought his intentions were racist (trying to impress Maddow and her viewers, no less).

I think Rand's stated premise is clear enough without inventing some "hidden premise" based on your own preconceived expectations of what Republicans really think.

Do you understand what a hidden premise is? It's a concept in logic based on the principle that two premises are necessary in order to prove a conclusion. Therefore, if a person lets his conclusion rest on one stated premise alone, that usually implies he's assuming an unstated, or hidden, premise. Identifying hidden premises isn't something conspiratorial; it's a basic facet of unraveling a great deal of rhetoric in politics and many other subjects.

My reconstruction of Paul's hidden premise wasn't based on any preconceptions about what Republicans think. It was based, quite simply, on recognizing the only assumption that would make his argument logically sound. When he argues that blacks should vote Republican because the segregationists were all Democrats, the statement is a non sequitur unless he assumes the Democratic Party today is essentially the same as it was back then. It's like if someone said "We should wage war against Germany because they gave us Hitler," you wouldn't be engaging in conspiratorial thinking if you suggested the person had a hidden premise that Germany represents the same threat today as it did during the Third Reich.

And there's nothing dishonest about stating his own opinion in his own terms

There is, however, a lot dishonest about claiming "I have never wavered in my support for...the Civil Rights Act" when the record shows that he did.

there's no reason he can't embrace both the cause of ending segregation and of limiting government (indeed, I'm sure he'd say they're the same cause).

Whether ending segregation through federal mandates (which is what we're discussing) is consistent with a general philosophy of limited government is something that people can reasonably disagree on. It is a matter of objective fact, however, that most limited-government conservatives opposed the civil-rights movement in the 1960s. I am open to arguments from conservatives and libertarians today about why the CRA is a good thing in light of their philosophy. But they first need to acknowledge that their ideological forebears at the time the bill was passed were wrong, and that its support came mostly from liberals in both parties. Referencing the views of Rockefeller Republicans in the '60s to bolster the civil-rights cred of conservative Republicans today is either ignorant or dishonest, and certainly dead wrong.

You're playing the same silly political games you're accusing Rand of when you insist on identifying him with the anti-segregation Republicans of the past.

You mean "anti-integration Republicans of the past," right? I'd put it more precisely as "anti-CRA Republicans of the past," but in any case, I hardly need to identify him with those Republicans. He himself has done so. He's spoken of Goldwater and Reagan as decisive influences on his political outlook.

Kylopod, your discovered "hidden premise" is not based on the logic of what Paul said, it's based on something you think Rush Limbaugh has said. Paul is connecting Republicans to the pro-freedom parts of his party history that make him proud. In doing so, he's also trying to write a new political narrative for the new political reality that he's trying to create, one that links our founding principles to the founding of the GOP and the civil rights movement with what he's trying to do today.

Again, Paul is completely free to pick-and-choose from who and what he admires from our history -- he's not tied to Goldwater's vote against the CRA any more than modern progressives are tied to FDR's internment of the Japanese. The fact that he disagrees with many of these historical figures on other things is completely irrelevant to what he's trying to do, which is to create something new.

I do agree that he should clarify his thoughts on the CRA and I'd be surprised if he doesn't do that at some point.

he's not tied to Goldwater's vote against the CRA any more than modern progressives are tied to FDR's internment of the Japanese

Name me one prominent liberal today who defends the internment of Japanese Americans. You won't find any. Virtually all modern-day liberals are appalled by it and consider it a great stain on FDR's legacy. Its only defenders in the present day are far-right provocateurs like Michelle Malkin. Paul, in contrast, has actually agreed in part with Goldwater's anti-CRA vote. (His dad has gone even further, expressing overt opposition to the law.) I have no problem with someone who admires figures of the past while disagreeing with them on specific issues. That is not the case here, and you know it.

Kylopod, Paul believes that segregation was a great injustice and has said he would have voted for the CRA to end it (unlike Goldwater). Regarding his concerns with how the CRA impinged on private property rights -- as I said previously, I think that's clearly a product of his libertarian impulse.

"Once again, there are costs for having an information structure within a party dedicated to fooling you own followers."

But there are seldom costs for having an information structure dedicated to fooling the whole country. The Democrats' ongoing deceptive framing on gun control may be an exception that proves the rule here. On drones, it only took Rand's one filibuster to un-fool the country -- but how often does that happen? And when it does, how often are there electoral consequences? The only consequence is that everyone suddenly agrees with Rand and pretends that it was never otherwise. The information structure automatically adjusts by creating a new deception.

First, I largely disagree with Couves' defense of Paul's criticism of the CRA. Not that Paul is *really* racist, but rather that Paul's view is really stupid. A libertarian (should) prevent discrimination at the Woolworth's lunch counter for the same reason he (should) support the Robinson-Patnam act - this is a crazy patchwork quilt of a country and there needs to be some internal controls to make it function properly for everyone.

Now that that's out of the way, I also feel like these speeches have been "mission accomplished" for Paul. Paul's opponents aren't just opposed to those speeches, they're incensed. Incensed over stuff that, frankly, seems like a difference of opinion, such as Bouie believing Paul should apologize more or Kilgore glibly leaping the vast chasm from Paul saying

“I think some think a white person is not allowed to talk about black history" to

Paul "openly posing as a victim of racism against white folks"!

Its the "openly" that's interesting in Kilgore's formulation. Kilgore clearly believes the race-bating coding in Paul's rhetoric is so obvious that anyone can see it; I must be dull because I don't, rather I see a guy making the most milquetoast protest against being savaged.

Why all the fury? Probably because Paul is succeeding. The elephant in the room here, the thing we can't talk about because everyone has an opinion that pisses everyone else off, is that after 50 years of liberals being "friends" with the black community, by any metric a community would care about (crime, poverty, education, etc), that has been a relationship of dubious quality. There must be quite a bit of recognition on the street among blacks that these liberals sure are nice to us, but look around.

Yes, I agree that Paul's view is stupid -- my point was that it wasn't southern Republican racism that lead him to it.

I don't know how much Rand is succeeding overall. The left does always seem to spend more time on criticism of libertarians, because libertarians tend to attract young voters and support causes that are attractive to many on the left. The allure of Rand's message to the black community is unproven, but you may be right about the left feeling insecure about their status with black voters. I mean, if even a black President won't address the mass incarceration of blacks caused by the war on drugs, then maybe they need to look to someone with an ideological impulse to question such policies.